Pages

As most of us know, and emphasised with the advent of using D&D Next to run Encounters, 4E as we know it will probably be over pretty soon. About the same time, or maybe some time after that, the 4E Online Tools like Compendium and Character Builder will likely be taken offline. (Moderators, Admins, if you have any news about WotC's concrete plans for this, feel free to post here and let the playerbase know)

Assuming that you like 4E and you would like to continue Running / Playing it, which of the following are you likely to do in Response? 1) Download the Well-Supported 3rd Party Character Builders and carry on as if Nothing Happened.2) Stick to Books that you Have, and if any Updates are missed, so be it.3) Save Information off Compendium, especially certainly Strong Feats, Items, PPs, EDs, etc.4) Mix of Above 2 and 3, for all the Classes5) Mix of Above 2 and 3, but limited to a few Classes / Sources that you like6) Same as 4, but do a combined effort with all your Usual Group to see who really wants to carry on.7) Stick to Books you Have, and Houserule everything else for convenience8) Similar to what happened to 3.5E Player-base, try to find a "Replacement" 4E*. Ideally a Replacement that is very close to the original 4E, with shortcomings and all, and the full Class Selection.9) Similar to the improvements that Pathfinder made over 3.5E, seek a Replacement that addresses the shortcomings of 4E*. This would be good even if the Class Selection is smaller and do not exactly mirror 4E.10) You are too busy to consider Any of the Above, so abandon 4E and turn to other Pursuits, Games etc.

* - I'm not sure but I think that a fair bit of 3.5E became Open Source. However, we do not know whether this will happen with 4E.

So, which are you likely to go with? You may opt for more than 1 choice, BTW, just wondering what are the inclinations of 4E Fans as a whole.

PS : If you don't like 4E and don't want to continue playing it, feel free to ignore this Thread ^^;;

I plan on contiuing to play 4E at this point, but that could change depending on how D&D Next pans out. Right now...I'm not too optimistic. Anyway, I generally plan the following:

- Continuing to play using the offline character builder and adventure tools (both of which I had the foresight to keep). Fortunately the offline CB is still being updated by the fan community.

- Looking for a "Replacement 4E" or retro-clone that updates, fixes, and clarifies some of the game's issues.

I am not too worried about the whole "feat tax" issue per se, though correcting some of the base math (basically +1 to attacks and defenses per tier) would be fine. I would really like to see a streamlined feat selection though. In this case, anything that gets rid of the 100 or so pre-Essentials feats that simply aren't worth taking. Post-MM3 math for monsters is right, so updating critters to that attack/defense/damage scheme would be good. Generally, I would also like to see some of the class builds refined and new (or "missing" builds, such as the Fall and Winter Sentinel, the Transmuter Mage, and so on) added.

And that's about it, really. So I guess...1 and 9, respectively. But 9 isn't a priority. Given time and some editing of the offline builder, I could come up with the builds and so forth that I want. I guess we will see what pans out!

I think the biggest issue is the plethora of sub-par feats and powers in the game. This is a matter of simple bloat more than anything else, and some judicious trimming would solve it easily.

The next biggest would be the lack of a few "iconic" builds, followed closely by the holes in some sub-classes build format. Namely, there are no viable archer-type fighters, transmuter mages, or Fall and Winter Sentinels. I know that the "archer" archetype is best served in 4E by the ranger, but it would be interesting to see how a defender minoring in striker could use ranged attacks to serve their role's funciton. Closely related to that, there are some classes that need "shoring up" with some new content or revised mechanics. The Seeker and the Runepriest come immediately to mind.

The final big issue (according to many) is the base math on the PCs' end. Specifically, there is the idea that the expertise and defense-boost feats are "feat taxes" to correct an imbalance in attack and defense progression. Adding a +1 per tier to PCs' attacks and defenses automatically would serve to correct this. Now I personally have never had a problem with PCs' accuracy or defenses during gameplay as either a DM or player, so YMMV. To me, it's not really a huge issue, and the post-Essentials expertise and superior defense feats are pure gold.

The other big complaints I hear on a regular basis are twofold. First, many state that skill challenges turn the "interaction and exploration" portion of the game into another form of combat, limit roleplaying, etc. I find that's an issue that can be fixed on the DM's side of the screen - most of the time my players don't realize they are in a skill challenge situation until it is nearly done. The other is that rituals are a great idea that just doesn't work. I find that is best fixed on the players' side of the screen. As long as the players remember to use these resources, they can be a great help. I think that if the DM gives out a few "free" rituals (i.e. handwaves the component cost a few times) the players will get more mileage out of them.

Personally, I think that some attacks (petrification, death gazes, certain poison attacks) should be much more dangerous than they are currently but not to the point of 3E and before's "instant win" buttons. I find the best way to handle that is to reduce the number of failed saves needed to trigger the end effect (petrification, death, etc) while making the saves to shrug the effect off a continuum rather than an instant out. In other words, say a medusa hits you with her gaze. You are immobilized and take ongoing damage. Fail the first save and you are petrified, save ends. Fail that save twice more, and it's permanent. Save and you are immobilized and taking ongoing damage again, with the possibility of being petrified. Or, if you save the first time, you are slowed and taking less ongoing damage, save ends. Fail and you are back to immobilized.

Anyway, that's about how I see it. To me, 4E is still a great system that corrected tons of issues I had with the last edition, and made me want to play D&D again.

I think the biggest issue is the plethora of sub-par feats and powers in the game. This is a matter of simple bloat more than anything else, and some judicious trimming would solve it easily.

I feel like trimming would only be good for those that are strictly worse than newer alternatives (like the expertise feats).

The final big issue (according to many) is the base math on the PCs' end. Specifically, there is the idea that the expertise and defense-boost feats are "feat taxes" to correct an imbalance in attack and defense progression. Adding a +1 per tier to PCs' attacks and defenses automatically would serve to correct this. Now I personally have never had a problem with PCs' accuracy or defenses during gameplay as either a DM or player, so YMMV. To me, it's not really a huge issue, and the post-Essentials expertise and superior defense feats are pure gold.

Sadly this is a quick and easy fix that someone going through and working from the ground up would be able to fix on the player side quickly and easily. Although some of the Superiors would remain extremely good (like Superior Will).

Personally, I think that some attacks (petrification, death gazes, certain poison attacks) should be much more dangerous than they are currently but not to the point of 3E and before's "instant win" buttons. I find the best way to handle that is to reduce the number of failed saves needed to trigger the end effect (petrification, death, etc) while making the saves to shrug the effect off a continuum rather than an instant out. In other words, say a medusa hits you with her gaze. You are immobilized and take ongoing damage. Fail the first save and you are petrified, save ends. Fail that save twice more, and it's permanent. Save and you are immobilized and taking ongoing damage again, with the possibility of being petrified. Or, if you save the first time, you are slowed and taking less ongoing damage, save ends. Fail and you are back to immobilized.

I dont agree that it should be a kill effect personally. I think these "worsening" save ends effects are great and should have more of a base role in the game. Rather than just "you are dead" it should ramp up so fast after a couple saves that you are effectively dead. I do it with stacking penalties to saves and high ongoing in my games.

Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here

The offline CB has some updated stuff, but WotC gave them a cease and desist order a while back and so some stuff is awkward. The old CB was decently easy to change and edit if you know a small amount about programming but we were all supposed to stop using that when they stopped supporting it.

Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here
If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here
Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here

I plan on quitting 4E when the online tools are no longer available, and if it's done before my 4E campaigns are complete, I will quit supporting WotC in any way whatsoever.

Pretty close to this. If it's done without any previous warnings, we'll wrap up any ongoing campaigns in a couple of sessions and be done with the edition (it'd be pretty silly/annoying if this happens before the LFR Epic campaign is finished btw).

Whether I continue with D&D at all depends on the quality of DDN and the number of people in my area who'll want to play it.

I will however continue to support WotC because of my addiction to cardboard crack

I plan on quitting 4E when the online tools are no longer available, and if it's done before my 4E campaigns are complete, I will quit supporting WotC in any way whatsoever.

Pretty close to this. If it's done without any previous warnings, we'll wrap up any ongoing campaigns in a couple of sessions and be done with the edition (it'd be pretty silly/annoying if this happens before the LFR Epic campaign is finished btw).

Whether I continue with D&D at all depends on the quality of DDN and the number of people in my area who'll want to play it.

I will however continue to support WotC because of my addiction to cardboard crack

Yep, my sentiments exactly. I too play M:tG and as long as that game continues to be as fun as it is now, they'll have my money in that regard. As far as D&D goes, they'll have my $71.99 a year subscription so long as the online Character Builder and Adventure Tools are suppored for 4E. I know that, at some point, Dungeon and Dragon articles will no longer be created to support my style, but I can convert them will little problems. If they DO decide to end 4E support for those programs, then I'd be really appreciative if they put out an off-line CB/MB progam for download with all the content available for 4E. That would show me that at least they care and it would be a nice parting gift for you years of contributions.

i think a lot of people will keep playing, about as many as do now. i think by now most everyone has offline tools, or otherwise doesnt need/want them. of course im pretty set with all of the books, campaign managers like masterplan, updated offline tools, as well as the online gaming site i use (you can import your cb pcs from your cpu onto the table, even from the offline builder; you can also buy all 4e monsters; all sans ddi-see my sig).

i still like the mags though and no offline compendium is fully updated, so ddi is still technically worth it to me for now.

like i have said before, if you run it they will come. if you are willing to dm, it doesnt matter what game you run. so if you are a 4e dm, you can always play. also, contrary to some reports, the books are still plentiful and cheap; many such as MM1 for example are actually still losing value, so it really isnt expensive to fill in gaps and just cut yourself off the cpu

as far as future support, i am working on a 4e fanzine and will post it here for free when im done. i have also seen rumors of other people working on other 4e fan material and houseruled material. there is also some ongoing 4thcore blog support. this guy made a couple of cool free 4thcore adventures you might have missed

When WotC moves on, I will keep doing exactly what I've been doing the last few years: Play 4e D&D.

I always used third party tools for monster creation, always homebrewed settings and adventures and, for the most part, I always seemed to have fun. That won't change just because Wizards isn't churning out new content. Heck, after looking through Heroes of Shadow, I haven't bothered with new content, since it didn't interest me. I kept an ear to the ground, sure, but the fact remains.

If I get bored with 4e as is, I might make some homebrew content or get a different gaming group together. Or see about running a 3.5/Pathfinder campaign. Or see about using one of a dozen different gaming systems I haven't got around to using yet.

And, who knows? If Next turns out to be good, I might take a crack at it. I might like it, I might not, but that won't change how I feel about 4e.

It's only the end if you allow it to be. I just started running my group through 4e by way of converting previous editon adventures, all the way back to 1e, and I don't plan to stop. I'll hunt down everything I need book-wise and online. As long we show support, they will get the message.

We've got no plans to stop playing 4E (actually, I'm now in two more 4E campaigns then when D&DNext was announced). Now that the edition is effectively done and we don't have to worry about any new content popping up to mess with game balance we've begun serious house-ruling.

We've removed item dependence (including the need for masterwork armor) and fixed the feat-tax issues with our own custom advancement tables for attack/damage/defenses (essentially adding all the half-level, feat and expected enhancement and item bonuses into a single value added to the relevant base ability modifiers for attacks, damage, and defenses respectively) and replaced AEDU with a 'spell-points'-like system for encounter/daily powers (we're still tweaking this a bit as we still have seperate pools for attack and utility powers and would like to combine them into a singular resource pool if possible, but we're going slowly so that we can easily identify what is causing the problem and either move forward or revert to our previous iteration as necessary).

s far as D&D goes, they'll have my $71.99 a year subscription so long as the online Character Builder and Adventure Tools are suppored for 4E.

Same here. If Wizards just kills the online tools, then I will kill my DDI subscription, and most likely, find less legit ways to do everything, regardless of if WotC wants it to happen or not. If they leave the 4e tools up....then I'll keep subscribing. Given what I'm seeing in the D&DN Playtest, I'm probably not going to bother switching (I'd call myself a grodnard, but I did switch from 3 to 4...), so the way for Wizards to get money out of me, at very little cost to itself, is just to keep the tools up.

I mean, its a no-brainer from where I'm sitting, but I know how foolish the corporate mindset can be.

s far as D&D goes, they'll have my $71.99 a year subscription so long as the online Character Builder and Adventure Tools are suppored for 4E.

Same here. If Wizards just kills the online tools, then I will kill my DDI subscription, and most likely, find less legit ways to do everything, regardless of if WotC wants it to happen or not. If they leave the 4e tools up....then I'll keep subscribing. Given what I'm seeing in the D&DN Playtest, I'm probably not going to bother switching (I'd call myself a grodnard, but I did switch from 3 to 4...), so the way for Wizards to get money out of me, at very little cost to itself, is just to keep the tools up.

I mean, its a no-brainer from where I'm sitting, but I know how foolish the corporate mindset can be.

This, pretty much word for word. I do, however, enjoy D&D Next (playtest sessions have been fun), but I see it as just another game to play and it won't replace 4e as my preferred version of D&D.

1) Download the Well-Supported 3rd Party Character Builders and carry on as if Nothing Happened.

Could you name some well-supported 3rd part CBs? The only one I'm aware of is fan support for the old CB. Herolab looks pretty good, but it was never updated. While it downloads data from DDI, it never updated the framework of the builder itself to handle Essentials classes and Themes.

2) Stick to Books that you Have, and if any Updates are missed, so be it.

Actually you don't need to worry about missing updates because all the errata can be downloaded for free from the website. I find it convenient to print it out and stick it inside the cover of the book it applies to.

8) Similar to what happened to 3.5E Player-base, try to find a "Replacement" 4E*. Ideally a Replacement that is very close to the original 4E, with shortcomings and all, and the full Class Selection.

9) Similar to the improvements that Pathfinder made over 3.5E, seek a Replacement that addresses the shortcomings of 4E*. This would be good even if the Class Selection is smaller and do not exactly mirror 4E.

I don't believe any such replacement exists. But that doesn't mean there couldn't be one.

However, I wouldn't want something that had the same shortcomings and all. I would want something that uses the same basic framework but improves upon what 4e had to offer. So put me down for #9.

And if a third party publisher does not release such a game, I'll do it myself (ok so I already started on it but if someone else does it better I'll use theirs instead).

10) You are too busy to consider Any of the Above, so abandon 4E and turn to other Pursuits, Games etc.

I can't imagine abandoning 4e for being too busy. Even if I was lazy and didn't feel like doing any additional work or buying any new material, I could just continue on with what I've got.

* - I'm not sure but I think that a fair bit of 3.5E became Open Source. However, we do not know whether this will happen with 4E.

3e didn't "become" open source, most of it was open from the start. It is extremely unlikely that WotC would make any of 4e open content.

Fortunately, that doesn't really matter. You don't need it to be open content in order to create 4e-compatible products. You don't need the GSL or any license at all. You don't need it to create your own game that uses the general 4e framework.

You do need it to be open content if you intend to do a mass copy-paste like so many 3e 3pp clones did, but if that's what you are doing, then what is your game really offering anyway?

At one point I do believe there was a wiki page where 4e material was being published via OGL, but that was on my old computer and I no longer have the link.

Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.

Nice to see all the great folks firmly keen on D&D 4E That's really heartwarming for a die-hard 4E fan like me who thinks that... but ok, no point mentioning them to you guys, it'll be like the new choirboy preaching to the choir.

I think the biggest issue is the plethora of sub-par feats and powers in the game. This is a matter of simple bloat more than anything else, and some judicious trimming would solve it easily.

I'm in the midst of doing this with some Classes in 4E, and with an aim to extend to more Classes. Apart from using it as a reference when the Tools are taken offline, my motivation is twofold - also to make it somewhat easier for new Players to see a full range of Powers in a single PDF, instead of having to download CBLoader or refer to multiple Books. I hope this facilitates bringing new Players into the game. However I can't do this for all the Classes...

The next biggest would be the lack of a few "iconic" builds, followed closely by the holes in some sub-classes build format. Namely, there are no viable archer-type fighters.

I've been come up with comparable defending mechanisms, but only playtesting will help to establish if it is viable. While I personally like the Seeker and I have a friend crazy about Runepriest, I've been focusing my efforts on the more "iconic" Classes first. And I don't know if it is just me looking at the DEX associated with Ranged Attacks, but somehow Slayer has always screamed "Archer Fighter!" to me.

The final big issue (according to many) is the base math on the PCs' end. Specifically, there is the idea that the expertise and defense-boost feats are "feat taxes" to correct an imbalance in attack and defense progression. Adding a +1 per tier to PCs' attacks and defenses automatically would serve to correct this. Now I personally have never had a problem with PCs' accuracy or defenses during gameplay as either a DM or player, so YMMV. To me, it's not really a huge issue, and the post-Essentials expertise and superior defense feats are pure gold.

I'll touch more on the Math shortly, think there might be a relatively simple way to fix the problem.

I don't think Skill Challenges and Rituals are big issues. Much like XP, they are codified for new DM's convenience, but I've found that keeping Players from knowing they are in a challenge (like yourself) can make things more natural, and calling for rolls that can be an immediate pass/fail in interaction can keep things more real at times. Rituals are also fairly flexible as well, you can simply alter them on the fly or b

Personally, I think that some attacks (petrification, death gazes, certain poison attacks) should be much more dangerous than they are currently but not to the point of 3E and before's "instant win" buttons. I find the best way to handle that is to reduce the number of failed saves needed to trigger the end effect (petrification, death, etc) while making the saves to shrug the effect off a continuum rather than an instant out. In other words, say a medusa hits you with her gaze. You are immobilized and take ongoing damage. Fail the first save and you are petrified, save ends. Fail that save twice more, and it's permanent. Save and you are immobilized and taking ongoing damage again, with the possibility of being petrified. Or, if you save the first time, you are slowed and taking less ongoing damage, save ends. Fail and you are back to immobilized.

I vaguely recall there are monsters that kill you (one Basilisk being an example) with 2 consecutive failed Saves. That said, a single Save and you're off-the-hook. There were mechanics for Diseases that could disable/kill Players outside of combat, which are more similar to what you say, in that a passed Save does not mean you're off the hook, it simply goes back up to the previous level of threat. There's also ways to make "Saving" take a more costly action other than "Free, at the end of every Turn."..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />

Now that the edition is effectively done and we don't have to worry about any new content popping up to mess with game balance we've begun serious house-ruling.

Oh yes, that is a fairly delightful occurence. One of the long-standing issues with 4E is power-creep, where the old Feats and arguably Class Features have become less competitive with the release of new Classes. With the halting of the releases the community has some time to go back and "reverse" the Power-creep, as Matyr nicely put it to me.

There's different approaches, and one that I've adopted for playtesting / house-ruling is a role-based custom feat access that gives everyone the chance to excel at a certain role. These house-rules however are purely optional, which is good since there is opportunity to see how these house-ruled characters perform alongside "normal" 4E characters. That said it does ruin some degree of "uniqueness", making the game, as some friends put it, "cookie-cutter".

Could you name some well-supported 3rd part CBs?

Well, actually I was having the old CB Loader in mind. Been considering whether to download it again. Bugged out twice on me before I became a DDI subscriber, but it might just have been my old computer acting up back then.

MATH & FEAT TAX

Most people probably have their own take on the Math, so this is just my understanding. It is put up here for critique though.+1 at Levels 4,8,11,14,18,21,24,28 effectively halves the Stat progression. That is where Expertise, Focus, and Improved Defenses come in. If we were to assume that all Stats were even numbers, and the +1 is replaced with a +2, we get...+2 at Levels 4,8,11,14,18,21,24,28For easy comparison, assumng you start at 16, 18,20 in your Primary Stat, you would get +1 attack at at levels 8, 14, 21, 28. So its roughly equivalent tolearning the Expertise feat at Lv 4, followed by getting it at Level 11 (right on time), then 18 (about 3 levels early). This cancels out Feat Taxes like Expertise, Focus, Improved Defenses.

However, there are some notable side-effects : - Levels 1-3 would probably be weaker than a Feat system where you can immediately learn XX Expertise, which lets you to frontload your +1 Expertise before the Level 4 you'd normally get the bonus. If you assume that you start with a 17,19, you'd effectively get an extra +1 at Lv 4.- You gain an extra +2 to 2 Stats. Given that most Epic Destinies give +2 to 2 Stats, this seems fine and in order- There's no use for odd scores like my favourite 17 or 19 in the Primary Stat at Level 1. Which may be a good or bad thing, depending how you see it. Effectively, this can replace the 10+2X Stats, turning it to simply Dex +4, which is equivalent to 18. I can't imagine everyone loving this though.- It is much easier to get Stats that have Minimimum Stat Requirements, eg. Superior Will- Extra Bonuses that are based on Stats benefit doubly from this. This ranges from Striker damage that is based on a Stat (Sorcerer, Slayer, Monk, Hexblade, etc) outstripping the Dice damage (PHB1 Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, etc), to the Healer's Bonus heals, to just about every aspect of Gameplay where a Stat benefits the game. However, most such bonuses originally increase with Tiers anyway, so this might just reduce the incremental number (instead of +2/4/6, it becomes +1/2/3 for example) or render it unnecessary (to go the way of say, Expertise and Focus etc)- Note that Improved Defenses automatically works for 2 of your NADs IF you are boosting (and keep boosting) 2 Stats that contribute to 2 separate NADs. This makes sense to some extent, but that's really the best case. 1 of your NADS (or 2 of them, if you are boosting say STR and CON) will almost certainly fall behind, and significantly. - Light Armor AC would increase significantly faster than what it already is. This outstrips "Masterwork" Heavy Armor (I'm no fan of Masterwork as well, it seems a contrivance to balance off the advantage of Light Armor, and then further adjusted so Light Armor also gets it, but at slower rate).

Note that AC and NADs are tricky, because in default 4E, assuming all else stays constant, Defenses tend to diminish with respect to Player Level over time (Feats & Rhythm Blade etc aside). While a Player can typically take feats to increase Defense in the early part of the game, by Paragon and Epic there are only a few such feats which are not accessible at earlier levels. It doesn't help also that the X in EL + X goes up to make it a challenge for Players, further slanting high-level game towards a "Let's have everyone hit each other all the time", which in turn grants power to those that have generally more "X Effect on a Hit" or "Lots of Damage" attacks. Or it could be that Players are expected to rely less on their gear and more on their Powers, like Powers that increase Defenses, generate lots of THP, absorb a lot of damage, etc.

OPTIONSI think there's people who like 4E the way it is, but from Trimming Bloat, there's other issues that I have in mind, mostly Optional Guidelines, like : - Making Magic Items more interesting, even Evolving - Addressing Huge Jumps in Damage, especially from Heroic to Paragon- Streamlining Paragon Paths & Epic Destinies- Vancian Magic Rules & Classes : This will be tricky, but could be interesting.- Save or Die Options : There are people who feel D&D is too "lite", or others who are facing heavily opped parties and want to inject more danger back into the game.- Separating Roles & Classes. This can be used to ensure older Classes are comparable with new Classes to counter Power Creep, and it provides a handy "Source Document" (similar to the topic mentioned under community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...) to ensure existing Classes are comparable (or incomparable, as the case might be) to other Classes within the same role.- Class Framework : for building Classes from scratch, and a comparison of Powers, separated by Tier. - Monster Power Collection : collection of notable / interesting Monster Powers to be used, separated by Tier.

If the WotC product catalog and contents of the last month's Dragon are any indication, then 4E is as good as done. There are no 4E products slated to come out in 2013, and the last Dragon had almost no 4E crunch.

5E is not supposed to launch until Spring / Summer 2014, until then, rather than milking us 4E players for as much as we are worth, WotC is reprinting old edition books with new covers and trying to get money from people whose favorite editions are long past.

If the WotC product catalog and contents of the last month's Dragon are any indication, then 4E is as good as done. There are no 4E products slated to come out in 2013, and the last Dragon had almost no 4E crunch.

5E is not supposed to launch until Spring / Summer 2014, until then, rather than milking us 4E players for as much as we are worth, WotC is reprinting old edition books with new covers and trying to get money from people whose favorite editions are long past.

I'll buy those old editions. Whatever I can't find for free anyways. I'll just enjoy converting it all to 4e and then downgrading anything I like from 5e to go along with 4e. Anything is possible in order to keep 4e alive and kicking. We're the only ones who actually kill off 4e by not keeping it going, not WotC. Maybe everyone get together and post a petition to WotC for more 4e before 2014?

There isn't any real preparing for me to do. I'm already not using ddi, and I have the books I want. In that sense, nothing is slated to change for me if I just keep playing 4e. The only thing I'm even mildly worried about is losing 4e players after Next is out, but I really don't think it'll be an issue, more of a "smaller pond" situation than a "barren wasteland" one.

Now that 4e is mostly done having new content created for it(WotC content, anyway), I've been considering going through it and doing some revamping, making my own sort of homebrew 4.5. But whether I actually go do that or not depends more on whether I think I can get people to use it.

s far as D&D goes, they'll have my $71.99 a year subscription so long as the online Character Builder and Adventure Tools are suppored for 4E.

Same here. If Wizards just kills the online tools, then I will kill my DDI subscription, and most likely, find less legit ways to do everything, regardless of if WotC wants it to happen or not. If they leave the 4e tools up....then I'll keep subscribing. Given what I'm seeing in the D&DN Playtest, I'm probably not going to bother switching (I'd call myself a grodnard, but I did switch from 3 to 4...), so the way for Wizards to get money out of me, at very little cost to itself, is just to keep the tools up.

I mean, its a no-brainer from where I'm sitting, but I know how foolish the corporate mindset can be.

This. I've not seen anything in the 5e playtest to suggest I'm going to like it. To me, it seems a step back to a lesser style. I certainly won't fault people for playing it, but I don't think I'll personally like it.

My preference right now, would be to continue to play 4e. I presently pay for DDI char builder, and won't pay for it for 5e stuff, and will move to less legit ways.

The only reason to discontinue 4e CB support is to try and force people to 5e. If they think they will make more money off people who feel they have no choice to go to 5e, then they have good reason to end 4e CB support.

I've not seen anything in the 5e playtest to suggest I'm going to like it. To me, it seems a step back to a lesser style. I certainly won't fault people for playing it, but I don't think I'll personally like it.

This is pretty much entire opinion. I don't want to be one of those "Rah, the new edition is HORRIBLE!" people. I genuinely want to like 5e, the same as how I genuinely wanted to like Essentials, but both set me up for disappointment.

I don't mind if other people like Essentials or 5e. In fact, if they like it, more power to them. But it just doesn't seem like its for me.

Of course, I'll wait until 5e is actually released, in a finalized form, before making my final judgment. But as it stands, I'm not expecting much, so I'll just keep enjoying 4e. There are a lot of characters and a lot of campaign ideas I haven't explored yet, after all.

4e is good enough that I see no point in tinkering with it. I just let my players do that if they really want to. I mean they've got a crapton of material to use. If they've got a wild hair about something, they can fix it.

As for 'preparation'... Assuming DDI does go away, which is of course definitely possible, I think I'll just continue to build on my xwiki based templates. I can basically document as much of the game as I need to online and make it pretty searchable without that much trouble. Old CB still exists, and despite anything anyone says my license to it says I can keep running it forever. If I hack on it who's to know or care? Same with MB, though I suspect we'll eventually make a better HTML based one with xwiki.

Assuming that you like 4E and you would like to continue Running / Playing it, which of the following are you likely to do in Response?

For me:

2) Stick to Books that you Have, and if any Updates are missed, so be it.7) Stick to Books you Have, and Houserule everything else for convenience10) You are too busy to consider Any of the Above, so abandon 4E and turn to other Pursuits, Games etc.

* - I'm not sure but I think that a fair bit of 3.5E became Open Source. However, we do not know whether this will happen with 4E.

3e was open-source from the beginning, 4e was not. There will be no Pathfinder-equivalent for 4e.

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Similar to the improvements that Pathfinder made over 3.5E, seek a Replacement that addresses the shortcomings of 4E*. This would be good even if the Class Selection is smaller and do not exactly mirror 4E.

I've already written my group's 4e replacement. No feat taxes and no retro classes, among other improvements.

Still would be nice if 4th edition material was being released while D&D Next is being created. That's the salt in the wound- D&D Next killed 4th releases. At least with 3rd they finished it off nicely (Elder Evils- Exemplar Evil One- Rules Compendium- etc...)

well, for starters, lab lord is a clone of b/x from 81, not becmi. secondly, it was published under the ogl. it is almost an exact clone; there are like a couple of saving throws changed and a couple of names that werent in the srd, otherwise it was exact. the d20 srd is sufficient to clone the classic editions; for example, od&d was successfully cloned by swords and wizardry using the d20 srd and ogl. see the last pages here for reference.

for 4e, you would have to change so much that it probably wouldnt resemble 4e; basically, you couldnt use anything that isnt covered by the old d20 srd. if you want to make new 4e content, you are better off using the 4e srd and gsl, lame as it is. thats what i am doing at least.

im not an expert on the subject, but i have researched it a bit in order to put out my magazine. in the end, it was simpler to use the gsl rather than hire a lawyer.

for 4e, you would have to change so much that it probably wouldnt resemble 4e; basically, you couldnt use anything that isnt covered by the old d20 srd. if you want to make new 4e content, you are better off using the 4e srd and gsl, lame as it is. thats what i am doing at least.

Alternately you could abandon the srd angle entirely. Sure that might mean you have to rename some of the more specific elements (call the attributes Might, Stamina, Agility, Intellect, Perception, and Presence) and adjust a few mechanics (use point buy to purchase the ability modifiers instead of ability scores), but it could be done.

Actually, I'd take it as an opportunity to fix some of the things with the system that have been problematic (i.e. a math fix, magic item enhancement bonuses) and kill some of the sacred cows even 4E was unwilling to kill. For example, drop AC entirely for weapon attacks vs. Reflex and then add basic bull rush, grab, and knockdown maneuvers which target Fort and a basic feinting maneuver that targets Will (with actual class powers providing improved versions of these).

You could build in the idea of themes (and hybrid classes) from the start and integrate them more cleanly. For example, perhaps you only choose one at-will attack power from your class, while the other is determined by your choice of theme? Or perhaps your choice of theme improves your basic attack in some fashion (ex. a guardian theme might let you grant an ally a bonus to their defense when you hit with a basic attack).

You could remove the whole class-skills issue (every class instead just gets 4 trained skills of choice) and run with the idea of power source specific powers available to every class with that power source (perhaps with modifiers based on class role).

The point is... I think there could be a real opportunity to create something akin to a 4.5E and have its rules mechanics and presentation be distinct enough that you wouldn't even NEED the GSL to make it work.